Standing Committee E

[Part II]

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Housing Bill

[Continuation from column 558]

Yvette Cooper: The clause provides that the home information pack duties do not apply where the property being sold is not available for sale with vacant possession.
 Under the amendment, the clause would provide that the home information pack duties would not apply to sales of properties in disadvantaged areas. We have said that we are keen to debate this issue, and take the views of the Committee on it. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning made it clear on Second Reading that we wanted to consider the issue carefully and take further views on it. That is why we have distributed to all Committee members the consultation and research documents that we have issued. This debate has been very helpful. 
 It has always been our intention to ensure that it is possible to make special arrangements for sales of low-value properties, and sales in low-demand areas, in regulations. That could be done in regulations made under clause 132, which enables the Secretary of State to provide for other exceptions from the home information pack duties. Alternatively, the regulation-making power in clause 133 enables the Secretary of State to tailor the contents of the home information pack, and that power could be used to make different provision for different areas and different descriptions of property. 
 The Bill already contains powers to address the kind of problems that hon. Members have raised, and it already provides some flexibility. For that reason, the amendment would not be the right way to proceed. Nevertheless, it has raised important issues that I want to respond to as part of the discussion.

Brian Iddon: Would my hon. Friend accept the proposal that, where a local authority has declared a housing renewal area, for the period of that renewal area people selling properties there should not be expected to provide seller's packs? That might be one way round the problem.

Yvette Cooper: That is certainly one option. A range of possibilities have been proposed, including identifying specific arrangements for housing renewal pathfinder areas, different arrangements for local authorities, and so on. I want to come on to some of those different options, and respond to some of the arguments that have been advanced this afternoon. Interestingly, this was also an issue during the original debates on the Homes Bill.
 The consultation paper has set out some of the options for Committee members. The core issue is that, for the rest of the market, the home information packs are a way of improving the information that is available and the transparency of the market, and therefore of reducing the overall cost of transactions by reducing the number of failed transactions across the market. However, the problem is that in low-demand areas the market may simply not function effectively, so there are concerns that sellers of low-value properties could be affected disproportionately, that they could be deterred from putting a house on the market in the first place, and that the cost of the pack in proportion to the value of the house could be a problem. 
 Equally, there are other issues surrounding the potential for stigmatising properties if areas are identified and red-lined, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East said. There are also concerns about creating anomalies and denying the benefits of packs to buyers. 
 Some interesting issues arise, because as hon. Members have said, it is not quite clear exactly what the impact will be on sellers and buyers in the low-value areas. There are already transaction costs for people selling and buying in low-demand areas. There are lawyers' fees, search fees and other transaction costs. By removing the home information pack, we effectively transfer many of those transaction costs back from the seller to the buyer. Given that the buyer will often be a low-income family as well, the transaction costs are just as likely to be a deterrent or a problem for the buyer as they are for the seller. It is not clear that shifting from the home information pack to the existing system will make sales any more likely.

Richard Younger-Ross: If the responsibility were suddenly put back on the buyer rather than the seller, the costs would often be borne when the mortgage on the property came through, and therefore the deterrent would not be the same as it is for someone who has to put the money up front for the seller's pack.

Yvette Cooper: That is an important point, and I want to come on to it. In terms of the overall costs, it is not clear that there will be a greater deterrent to the transaction through the introduction of the information packs. One of the most powerful points is the fear that in low-demand areas, surveyors, lawyers and other agents may be less likely to defer their costs, relative to the rest of the market—the point made by the hon. Member for Poole. Those costs may have to be paid upfront because of a failure in the market provided by the different agents involved in the transactions. That is a significant issue and we must recognise that.
 We must also recognise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts): the home condition report may be a benefit to sales in low-demand areas. Buyers in low-demand areas will be in just as much need of protection as those in higher-demand areas and possibly in greater need. The introduction of the home condition report may 
 increase confidence in areas where the property seems to be deteriorating. There is a series of factors that will affect this, and in quite a complex way. 
 The majority view of respondents to the consultation was that identifying areas to exempt from home information packs would be damaging. Respondents were predominantly inclined to favour the approach of leaving it to the market, at least for the time being. They were also clear that if the Government were to amend the provisions for home information packs for low-demand areas, the best option was a cash limit so that sales below the prescribed amount would be exempted from some or all of the home information duties rather than simply those that were in a particular area.

John Hayes: Presumably, the argument runs that the advantage of that is that it could single out individual properties without stigmatising an area and would reflect the fact that there are some low-value properties in most areas or streets. Is it something that the Government considered adding to the Bill, or are they still considering it?

Yvette Cooper: I think the hon. Gentleman is right that the respondents felt that to be the advantage of doing this on the basis of price, rather than of particular areas. Certainly, there are much stronger arguments in favour of using cash rather than location to try to address the problem. Again, different views were expressed in the consultation. We are keen to consider further both the responses to the consultation and the points that hon. Members have made today.

Richard Younger-Ross: Before the Under-Secretary reaches her final conclusion, could she tell us whether, if the Government do not exempt properties from housing information pacts, they will consider providing grants for properties below a certain value to aid the process? That would overcome some of the problems that other hon. Members have quite rightly highlighted.

Yvette Cooper: As I said, we set out a series of options when we consulted. They included relying on local authority powers to provide financial assistance to sellers in the preparation of their pack in particular areas. Interestingly, many of the consultation respondents were a bit reluctant about that, too, on the basis that local authorities would need to identify the type of area. It raises the issues of areas versus cash limits for local authorities, too. The other approach that we suggested in the consultation was exempting the home condition report from the pack, so limiting the pack in some areas, but again that comes up against the difficulties raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe.
 We are happy to consider further some of the points made by respondents to the consultation about identifying market renewal areas, pathfinder project areas, and other areas in which to try different approaches, and we could perhaps consider experimenting with other schemes. However, we do 
 not believe that there is sufficient evidence to justify putting anything in the Bill. We have taken powers to respond to the problem in low-demand areas, which we believe is right. We shall consider further the points made in the consultation, but there is no strong case for committing ourselves to taking particular action in the low-demand areas: we shall have to do further work on the issue, to ensure that we get it right and do not cause more problems than we solve. Instead of making matters worse for those buying and selling in low-demand areas, the Bill attempts to tackle the problems, to regenerate those areas. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for Teignbridge to seek to withdraw the amendment. I assure the Committee that we continue to give the matter considerable thought.

Richard Younger-Ross: I am grateful for the Under-Secretary's helpful and positive response. I hope that, if she allows the provision to go into operation, it is allowed to work for only a short time. I believe that there are ways of dealing with what will almost certainly be a problem. I believe not that there is likely to be a problem but that there almost certainly will be.
 On the basis of the Under-Secretary's positive response and her recognition that there is a problem that she will continue to work at, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 131 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 132 - Power to provide for further exceptions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Kidney: I think that I am right in saying that the clause contains the first reference to the Secretary of State as the maker of regulations in part 5, which marks part 5 out from every other part of the Bill, in which the regulator is the appropriate authority, which is the Secretary of State in England, but the National Assembly in Wales. Officials have explained to me that the reason for the difference is that we now are dealing with a conveyancing process across all of England and Wales, and because conveyancing transactions form chains that go across country boundaries, transactions could affect both England and Wales, so it is appropriate to have a single maker of regulations. The officials stressed that the Secretary of State will be under a duty to consult the National Assembly for Wales when making regulations. It would be helpful if the Minister would confirm that that understanding is correct.

Keith Hill: I so confirm.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 132 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Column Number: 563

Clause 133Contents of home information packs

Contents of home information packs

Richard Younger-Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 356, in
clause 133, page 89, line 19, at end insert—
'(d) that a property may be marketed with an incomplete pack in circumstances where reasonable efforts have been made to get the missing information'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 358, in
clause 133, page 89, line 27, at end insert 'and their professional advisers'. 
No. 359, in 
clause 133, page 89, line 31, after 'the terms', insert 
 '(but not a form of contract)'. 
No. 410, in 
clause 133, page 89, line 34, leave out 'relating to or affecting' and insert 'relevant to'. 
No. 360, in 
clause 133, page 89, line 37, after 'person', insert 
 'company or partnership who or which'. 
No. 361, in 
clause 133, page 90, line 6, at end add 
 'or to a property information form giving similar information'. 
No. 362, in 
clause 133, page 90, line 12, after 'person', insert 
 'company, partnership, association or local authority'. 
No. 411, in 
clause 133, page 90, line 27, at end insert— 
 '(d) power to be granted to the Secretary of State to enable local authorities to set and maintain fees for those searches and functions as required under the Local Land Charges Act 1975, The Local Land Charges Rules 1997 and the Commons Registration Act 1965'.

Richard Younger-Ross: Everyone knows the sci-fi series called ''Quantum Leap'', in which Dr. Sam Beckett leaps from one improbable situation to another. When he realises that he is in difficult circumstances, his catchline is, ''Oh boy.'' There is nothing wrong with the amendments, it is just the number that one is expected to speak to.
 We have already touched on the subject of home information packs, and I wish to explore it further through the amendments. 
 The purpose of amendment No. 356 is to allow the property to be marketed without the full information pack where reasonable efforts have been made to assemble one. We partly touched on that in the previous debate. In some cases, the seller may have made every effort to assemble the pack, but may not have been able to complete it. For example, the service charge information required from a landlord or a managing agent may not have been available within the time frame, or the details of a very old covenant referred to in the deeds may have been lost. 
 It would be unfair to penalise a seller who could not produce all the documents. They are reliant on other organisations to access the information required, and they must not be precluded from selling a property as a result of the failings of others if they have taken every reasonable effort to put that information together. 
 The purpose of amendment No. 358 is to ensure that buyers are provided with information that they and their solicitors and/or conveyancers require to satisfy the needs of the buyer and of the lender clients. Having accepted that there may have been a problem before, the amendment would allow the improvement of the pack to ensure that the information is provided. It is important to ensure that the information provided is relevant to not only the buyer but their professional advisers, without whom the transaction in many cases could not proceed. 
 The purpose of amendment No. 359 is to ensure that the terms on which the property is to be sold are supplied, and not the contract itself. It might be a trap for buyers to be presented with a potentially binding sale contract that they sign without taking professional advice. We are all aware of people in the market who are a little bit sharp. First-time buyers, those with low property values and elderly people, who find that they have not read all the clauses in a contract, can saddle themselves with unexpected costs. 
 The purpose of amendment No. 360 is to ascertain whether a person who can reasonably be expected to provide information includes a landlord or a managing agent of a flat. What is the position if that person, company or partnership does not provide the required information speedily? Are they to be placed under a duty to provide the required information within a limited period? Their current duty may be contained within individual lease documents and within general landlord and tenant law. If the managing agent or landlord fails to provide the required information within a limited period, it would be possible to market the property without that information. 
 Amendment No. 361 would update the Bill to include the most widely used forms in current property sales and purchases. We would not want the Bill to gather dust on the shelf. Its purpose is to encompass the property seller's information forms that are currently widely used in residential conveyancing, but are not ''replies'' as such. They are effectively the current form of old pre-contract inquiries, which may still be used in some instances. 
 Amendment No. 362 is designed to ascertain what the Government may do under the power to make regulations. Do the Government plan that only a local authority will be able to prepare a local authority search? Do they envisage restricting documentation production to those with appropriate professional standing and insurance? That concerns the quality of the pack. We want to ensure that if there is a pack, it will contain good-quality, consistent and accurate information. 
 We are interested in how the Government intend to use the regulatory power, and I am sure that the Minister will reply fully on that. Will he give us examples of organisations and the prescribed documents that they envisage may cause regulations to be made under subsection (7)? Is the person of the prescribed description likely to be a solicitor or a conveyancer?

John Hayes: This large group of amendments covers many issues, and I will start with the amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman. He is rather like the last member of relay team who, after the others have sped off, has been left with a dodgy baton. In speaking to the amendments, he has unsurprisingly dropped it. His amendments would add little value to the Bill, and I will deal with them as quickly and generously as I can.
 Amendment No. 356 would allow for an incomplete pack to be provided 
''where reasonable efforts have been made to get the missing information''. 
Although the hon. Gentleman and I agree that the packs should not be mandatory, I believe that if we are going to have them, common sense dictates that their contents must be consistent. The idea that some packs will have all the information, some will have some information and some will have only little information, and that the different regimes may coexist in the same chain of property transactions, is highly undesirable. 
 Furthermore, how can ''reasonable'' be defined for legal purposes? The hon. Gentleman will say that the word ''reasonable'' is used frequently in legislation and that the test of reasonableness is well understood in law, and I have no doubt that his friends and mentors in the Law Society would concur. However, I am not sure that it would be useful to litter any Bill with the word as a catch-all, when it is hard to define what is reasonable in this context. Most people who did not complete their pack could say that they had made reasonable efforts. I am not sure that the amendment is useful. 
 However, that amendment is probably more wisely worded than amendment No. 358, which would include in the definition of ''relevant information'' material that would be of interest to the professional advisers of potential buyers as well as the potential buyers themselves. It seems bizarre to assume that the information deemed to be of interest of potential buyers does not include information that would be of interest to their professional advisers, which is the implication, if not the intention, of the amendment. 
 Not all potential buyers will have professional advisers, so not only is there a possible dichotomy implicit in the amendment, but as far as I read it, it would necessitate the hiring of professional advisers. It may be true that down deep in Ludlow, everyone has an architect and a lawyer at their fingertips to offer them advice at every turn when they take decisions about their home, but in humble South Holland that is certainly not the case, and in up-and-coming Streatham it is only partly true. It would be undesirable to build in the requirement for professional advice in what otherwise might be a fairly simple process. 
Richard Younger-Ross rose—

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman wants to intervene. He must not rise to the bait too much; I have been very kind to him so far and resisted temptation.

Richard Younger-Ross: I have no intention of rising to the bait laid by the hon. Gentleman. For the amount of the fishing that he does, he uses an awful lot of bait. He made two points on the amendments. Why should people think that they always have to complete the pack? If information is not available, sales could fall; buyers could be lost because the information cannot be put together. The purpose of amendment No. 356 is to probe that, and it is disingenuous to suggest that it is not a probing amendment. I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will be able to answer my question.
 On amendment No. 358, perhaps it is because lawyers have looked at the Bill and done so with a lawyer's eye, but when they add words to a proposal it is usually to close a loophole that they fear other lawyers will exploit later, if given an opportunity. I do not suggest that all lawyers will go looking for loopholes in respect of the information packs, but it is a possibility. It is an entirely sensible provision to include the words in the amendment, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree.

John Hayes: I am not persuaded by the hon. Gentleman, who, all in all, is a pretty unpersuasive figure. Although I know that there are those who like him in Devon, he does not cut much of a dash with me. He has to justify his amendments rather more persuasively than saying that it might be desirable to have a few extra words to act as a catch-all.
 I am not convinced that the amendments add anything useful to the Bill. There is an argument for tabling amendments that probe the Government to discover their perspective; there is certainly an argument for tabling amendments that, once one has accepted that the Government are taking a certain route, try to improve the way they are going; and a further argument for amendments that contradict the Government's position and so allow us to make a counter-view known and to vote on it; but I am not sure that an amendment that is there only for the sake of it, as these amendments are, is helpful. 
 On amendment No. 362, the legal definition of ''person'' is widely understood. The way that ''person'' is used throughout the Bill is fairly widely applied; to amend ''person'' in one part of the Bill without doing so throughout would—I put it mildly—leave the Bill an inconsistent document, which would be hard to support and apply in law. The hon. Gentleman has made a start—I am trying to be as generous as I can—although not necessarily a good one, and I suppose we must be grateful for that. 
 Amendment No. 410 is designed to ensure that all searches relevant to the property are included in the home information pack. The consultation document on the content of the home information pack suggested that the Secretary of State would require four specific searches to be included. These four searches will not always be required for a successful transaction. Many transactions will also require the provision of other searches, such as the Coal Authority search. 
 I would like the Minister to deal with the specific issues that I raised earlier: we need to be clear about tin mining, coal mining and the likelihood of flooding. 
 House building on flood plains is a significant issue that we have not dealt with in this Committee. The Minister may have a ready answer—in fact, I rather suspect he has, given his shuffling of papers—and it would be useful if he could share it with the rest of the Committee. 
 Surely home information packs should contain all the required searches, rather than imposing unnecessary costs on consumers for irrelevant searches, even exposing the transaction to failure or delay as a result of not including a relevant search. The reason this is so important is that in areas prone to flooding or with a likelihood of subsidence due to earlier mining, if the pack does not include the relevant information, purchasers will inevitably commission their own searches. If they know that they are buying a house in a former Nottinghamshire coalfield and they know that the area has a record of subsidence problems due to mining, they are likely to commission other research if the pack does not do the job. The hon. Member for Ipswich is waving the Select Committee report.

Chris Mole: No, the Government's response.

John Hayes: As before, he is an assiduous member of this Committee and was an assiduous member of that one. We are delighted to have him here, we greatly value the contribution he continues to make to these discussions, and I am grateful for his prompt. He is right, this matter has been raised before. I think that the Government are clear about it, but we need to be sure of that.
 This is the third time I have raised these issues, but this time I do so in respect of a specific amendment, and I hope that on this occasion the Minister will deal with some of the issues relating to other searches. 
 Amendment No. 411 is an altogether more substantial affair, designed to enable local authorities to set a price for their land search activities commensurate with the cost of delivering such services. Throughout this consideration we have been at pains to point out that there will be important new responsibilities for local authorities when the Bill is enacted. My hon. Friends and I are ever the defenders of local democracy, and there are no more vigorous defenders than we. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole is looking sceptical.

Peter Pike: Order. We had better keep to the amendment.

John Hayes: Yes, you are right, Mr. Pike. My hon. Friend just constantly undersells himself, which is a great disappointment to me.
 We have consistently and repeatedly argued that local authorities must be properly resourced to carry out their responsibilities, and the Minister has generously said that these authorities will be indeed be resourced. However, amendment No. 411 deals with the other side of that coin.

Alan Whitehead: I was just reflecting whether the hon. Gentleman has himself reflected on the activities of Leon Trotsky in the ''French turn'' during the 1930s that he undertook in defence of the Fourth International.

John Hayes: I have always been rather more interested in Marx than in Trotsky, to be blunt. Ultimately, though, I am a Hegelian, as the hon. Gentleman will probably anticipate, but I do not think that any of this is quite relevant to the amendment in the way that you perhaps want it to be, Mr. Pike.

Peter Pike: I am quite confident that it is not. Be mindful that we have just over an hour and quite a lot to do, Mr. Hayes.

John Hayes: Indeed.

Peter Pike: So do not be led astray.

John Hayes: I am not going to be encouraged to say too much about Trotsky at this juncture.
 The other side of the coin is that local authorities should be obliged to charge a fair price for their activities in relation to the pack. The rationale is that prospective buyers can choose from two types of land searches: an official search or a personal search. The official search is conducted by local authority officers, while a personal search is generally conducted by private agencies. We have already heard a great deal about that in our discussion. Personal searches currently account for about 20 per cent. of searches, but the figure is rising, and there was a suggestion, perhaps no more than a hint, from the Minister that he expected such business to grow. In defence of the argument that this will be an enormously onerous task—that home information packs will generate a massive amount of paperwork and are a great additional burden—the Minister hinted that he anticipates the burgeoning in the marketplace of private organisations that will take on the business of conducting private searches. 
 The amount that a local authority can charge a private agency is set down by law. The charge is currently £11 for making a personal search on a local land charge register, which is artificially low, as the actual cost to the local authority when enabling a personal search is estimated at about £50. More local authority staff time is taken up dealing with personal searches than in carrying out an official local search. In other words, the local authority ends up dealing with the personal search personnel—the other organisation—which probably takes up more time than if they did the job themselves. Clearly, the authority is making a loss. 
 Consumer protection for home buyers choosing the personal search route is questionable. The Law Society suggests this approach only when limited time does not permit an official search to be made. Personal search agencies and local authorities currently charge consumers a similar fee for the end product. Increased computerisation is enabling authorities to reduce the cost to consumers. In practice, most local authorities 
 have now automated their systems, but a significant minority have not. Again, I would be interested to hear the Minister's observations on what effect that will have on implementing the Bill. Efficiency has markedly improved in most parts of the country, but the process is still slow and relatively inefficient in others. In those circumstances, it would be very hard to put these packs together in the time required. The arguments that we advanced earlier about that slowing down the market and therefore reducing the number of properties on the market at any time will be all the more profound in those areas. 
 Some authorities have been criticised for being slow to deal with official search requests. Today, 92 per cent. of official requests are dealt with within 10 days. Of those, 24 per cent. are dealt with in under six days. As I said, a very small minority are very slow indeed. The process is speeding up considerably as authorities rely more and more on new technology to enable electronic searches. Authorities depend on fee income to fund such technology and to invest further in the technology that will be required to take on the extra burden that the legislation imposes, so the charges are highly pertinent. 
 Current arrangements are resulting not only in lost revenue for authorities through private agencies increasing their market share, but in the actual costs of enabling personal search services. Costs to local authorities are estimated at between £51 million and £69 million. The introduction of home information packs will exacerbate this problem. The answer is to deregulate the setting of search fees, thereby enabling authorities to charge a price commensurate with the services provided and to give a level playing field with pricing services provided by local authorities and private agencies. 
 The Local Government Association has a long-standing commitment to deregulating local authorities. It is fair to say that the Government have been sympathetic to that in recent years. This is an example of an area that requires local authorities to be given greater freedom to charge a fee in a way that is commensurate with real costs. 
 Amendment No. 411 would provide for greater clarity. It would be fairer to local authorities, allowing them to charge an amount that would be widely understood to be fair and reasonable. By giving certainty to those who are commissioning the authority and to the authority itself, the Government would be doing an enormous favour to all concerned. They should support such a productive, positive and—unlike some of the others in the group—sensible amendment.

Keith Hill: I now feel that the Committee can see light at the end of the tunnel. After many hours of debate on the subject of home information packs, I think that we have now dealt with all the major issues. Our debate on issues of low demand and low price was good, and I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe and for Bolton,
 South-East for their contributions. We will read their contributions with care, and take them into account when taking our decisions.
 Our debate on this large number of amendments enables me to fill in any remaining gaps in what has been an exhaustive consideration of part 5. I am sure that the Committee will forgive me if I say without apology that I intend to give a detailed response to the points raised. [Interruption.] I see that my observation is not met with the unqualified enthusiasm that I had anticipated from my Back-Bench colleagues. Nevertheless, I make no apology for taking the contribution of the hon. Member for Teignbridge seriously. 
 Clause 133 contains general powers for the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulations the documents required to be included in home information packs and information to be included in, or excluded from, those documents. The clause requires that any information required to be included in the pack must be relevant. That is, it must be information that, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, relates to the property or its sale, and is likely to be of interest to potential buyers. 
 Amendment No. 358, tabled by the hon. Member for Teignbridge, would add to the definition of ''relevant information'' information that would be of interest to the professional advisers of potential buyers, as well as to the buyers themselves. That is unnecessary. The role of professional advisers is to represent and advise on the interests of their clients. It follows that their interest will be very much in line with that of their client, and that is already covered in the definition given in subsection (4). However, I recognise the importance of ensuring that the contents of the pack assist professional advisers to perform their role efficiently and effectively. 
 The clause goes on to give, without prejudice to the Secretary of State's use of the regulation-making power, broad descriptions of the sort of information that might be included in home information pack documents. 
 Amendment No. 359, also tabled by the hon. Member for Teignbridge and his Liberal Democrat colleagues, would prevent regulations from requiring inclusion in the pack of a ''form of contract'' relating to the terms on which the property is offered for sale. I do not think it would be beneficial to fetter the Secretary of State's discretion in that way. However, I recognise the concerns that lie behind the amendment, to which the hon. Gentleman has personally devoted considerable thought. 
 In our consultation paper on the contents of the home information pack, we drew attention to the potential drawbacks with having a prescribed form of draft contract in the pack, and to concerns about including even a specimen draft contract. Rather, we proposed that the pack should contain a summary of the terms on which the property is being offered for sale, and 24 of the 57 responses on the issue support our proposal, and 29 disagree with including a draft contract in the pack. We will therefore consider the 
 issue further in the light of the responses received, in further consultation with the professional and consumer bodies. 
 Any information prescribed for inclusion in a document in the pack must be ''relevant'' information. Subsection (4) defines relevant information as 
''information about any matter connected with the property (or the sale of the property) that''— 
in the Secretary of State's opinion— 
''would be of interest to potential buyers.'' 
Subsection (5)(c) says: 
 ''Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4), the information which the Secretary of State may consider to be relevant information includes . . . anything relating to or affecting the property that is contained in'' 
a statutory register or certain other records. 
 I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings had to say in support of amendment No. 410, but I am still not convinced that the change is necessary. I find it difficult to envisage any relevant information in those registers and records that does not relate to or affect the property. The provisions in subsection (5) are expressly without prejudice to the Secretary of State's power under subsection (4) to prescribe for inclusion in the pack any information about a matter connected with the property or its sale that is of interest to potential buyers. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked about searches in relation to subsidence and similar problems. The answer is that home information packs should contain all required searches, including those that relate to coal. Our consultation paper on the contents of the pack proposed that it should contain replies to local land charge searches and to other standard, additional search enquiries. Those are the standard searches that apply to all or the majority of transactions. There was overall agreement from respondents with that approach. Indeed, subsection (9) provides that, when prescribing the contents of the pack, the Secretary of State may make different provision for different areas. That provides an option for other searches to be included in particular areas, such as a Coal Authority search in areas of past and current mining activity. We are considering the issue further with professional bodies and consumer representatives. He has asked for our position on that matter on more than one occasion, and I trust that he is now content with the explanation that I have offered.

John Hayes: That is most helpful. Very briefly, I wonder whether the Minister would include in those considerations flood and flood risk. He seemed to say that that would be possible, given what he said about local discretion. I am sure that he understands that there are profound concerns about that issue, because of the number of properties that are built on flood plains.

Keith Hill: I do not think that we need to make specific provision for that, since the purpose of the water and drainage searches, which are conducted in connection with any acquisition of property, are designed specifically to identify flood risk.
 Subsection (6)(a) provides that the pack may include the seller's replies to prescribed pre-contract inquiries. Amendment No. 361, also in the name of the hon. Member for Teignbridge and his colleagues, would extend that provision to cover a seller's property information form, which is a standard form adopted by conveyancers. We proposed in the consultation paper that the pack should include the property information form, and 35 of the 47 respondents on that issue support its inclusion. Again, we will consider that further with key stakeholders. 
 I advise the Committee that the amendment is not necessary to enable the pack to include a property information form. The form provides information on matters affecting the property that are likely to be important to potential buyers. The information is therefore very much relevant within in the meaning of subsection (4). Also, we are satisfied that, for the purposes of subsection (6), replies to pre-contract inquiries encompass replies to such inquiries made in the property information form. 
 Amendment No. 362, again in the name of the indefatigable hon. Member for Teignbridge, would test who or what is a person for the purposes of subsections (5)(c)(ii) and (7)(b). The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was right that, as with other legislation, the term encompasses any organisation including authorities, associations, companies and partnerships. Indeed, the statutory basis lies in schedule 1 of the Interpretation Act 1978, which provides that 
 '''Person' includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate.'' 
The hon. Member for Teignbridge asked for examples of organisations under subsection (7). Examples of such organisations would be a home inspector for a home condition report, the Land Registry for evidence of title, and the local authority or properly insured personal search company for local searches. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether only local authorities provide a search. I am eager to satisfy his insatiable curiosity, and I can tell him that we have consulted on that and will be considering the matter. We shall consult further industry stakeholders and insurer representatives. The fact is that private search companies provide an alternative to local authorities, and, provided that consumers' interests are safeguarded, there is no obvious reason to exclude such companies. 
 The hon. Gentleman also asked, in connection with amendment No. 360, whether a landlord or managing agent who does not provide information is covered by these duties. I remind him that the Bill imposes obligations only on responsible persons—the estate agent or, occasionally, the seller. Separate legislation covers the duty of landlords and managing agents to 
 provide relevant information; I am thinking of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman's ever-inquiring mind. 
 I fully appreciate the sentiments behind amendment No. 356. It would clearly be unreasonable to prevent someone from marketing their home if they genuinely could not obtain one or more of the components of the home information pack. Subsection (9)(a) empowers the Secretary of State to provide in regulation for the time at which any document is to be included in the pack. We have in mind to use that power to enable properties to be marketed with an incomplete pack if, through no fault of the seller or the seller's agent, one or more prescribed documents are not available or cannot be supplied within a reasonable period. In such cases, we would require that the missing item or items must be indicated in the pack and inserted in the pack if and when they become available. 
 Naturally, the Committee will appreciate that the balance needs to be struck between the objective of ensuring that the negotiations between the seller and the buyer commence on a fully informed basis, and the need to avoid delaying the marketing process unreasonably. Indeed, in our consultation paper on the contents of the home information pack, we proposed 14 days as a reasonable time scale. In other words, if a seller or marketing agent is still waiting for an item two weeks after it was requisitioned, they should be free to commence marketing the property with an incomplete pack. We will now consider that further, in consultation with industry and consumer stakeholders.

Andrew Selous: So that there is clarity, will the Minister tell the Committee who will have the power to decide whether it is in order to carry on marketing a property if the documents are incomplete?

Keith Hill: The enforcers at local level are the trading standards officers, and we would expect them to intervene if there were a serious disregard of the requirements of the law in that matter. I emphasise that we are totally confident that they will exercise common sense in that matter. I say again, and I know that this was welcomed by the hon. Member for Poole, that we expect trading standards officers to operate with a light touch.
 I was about to turn to amendment No. 411, so movingly moved by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings—

Peter Pike: It has not been moved. It is being debated but it was not moved.

Keith Hill: So passionately spoken to by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings on behalf of local authorities up and down this great country of ours. Of course, some of us have long enough memories to remember the more than 50 Acts of Parliament introduced between 1979 and 1997 that in their various forms served to diminish, cut back and undermine the powers of local government. However, we on this side of the Committee, welcome the sinner
 that repenteth, and we recognise in the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, in his party, the passion of the new convert to the paths of local democracy.

Andrew Selous: The Minister has is indulging in a flight of oratory, but I cannot let him get away with it. He will be well aware—as I hope his colleague the Under-Secretary is—of what his Government are doing in local government in my constituency: they are taking all discretion away from all local authorities on planning matters.

Peter Pike: Order. Before I call Mr. Hill, let me say that I do not want us to get sidetracked into what might, on other occasions, be a very interesting debate. I have to remind hon. Members that the sitting must end at 6.55 pm. At the request of the Opposition, my co-Chairman, last Thursday morning, indicated his intention to take amendment No. 420 formally and to allow a Division. I have no jurisdiction to determine the priorities, so I can only take that vote if we reach clause 134 and have already debated the first large group of amendments. We have not got much time.

Keith Hill: Then let me simply say in passing, that I utterly refute the charge made by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire. The fact of the matter is that the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill leaves great powers over planning matters in the hands of local district councils and local planning authorities.
 Amendment No. 411 would give the Secretary of State the power to enable local authorities to determine their own fees for searches of the local land charges register and the commons register. Local land charges register search fees are, of course, set by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. However, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and I agree on this matter. Deregulation in this area is part of the Government's strategy for implementing the local government White Paper. The Committee will appreciate that local land charges are not in any sense restricted to housing matters. There are a number of other matters, not least charging for personal searches of the local land charges register, that need further thought. The Department for Constitutional Affairs is planning to carry out a review on the subject before taking further steps. In the meantime, I can promise to the Committee that I shall further consider, with colleagues, whether there is any way in which this Bill might assist in delivering deregulation in this area. Setting fees for searches of the common land register is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I understand that her Department is considering other proposals to change the mechanism for regulating those fees. 
 I have offered the Committee, including Opposition Members, a—by any standards—more than comprehensive response to the points they made. In the light of my generous response to their concerns, I trust that they will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

John Hayes: I am not in a position to withdraw my amendments, despite the Minister's encouragement to do so. He has been, as he said, generous in dealing with amendment No. 411. He appreciates the problem that I articulated on behalf of local government everywhere, and he made a good case. Were I in a position to do so, I should certainly withdraw my amendments.

Peter Pike: Before I call the hon. Member for Teignbridge, I find, after checking the Standing Orders, that I can put the Question on amendment No. 420 after the knife has fallen. I can call the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to move the amendment formally, as my co-Chairman indicated that notice was given at the appropriate time.

Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister stated that he would speak on the amendments at length and fully; he has certainly done that. I thank him for the detail: he has answered a number of questions with some understanding of the issues raised. I am pleased that he is able fully to answer the points made. It might explain why he is in his position while others were cast out from positions that they held some years ago. On the basis of his answers, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Richard Younger-Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 355, in
clause 133, page 89, line 19, at end insert—
 '(1A) Before making regulations for the purposes described in subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall consult with representatives of those bodies likely to have an interest in or be affected by the proposals.'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 357, in
clause 133, page 89, line 19, at end insert— 
 '(e) A Statutory Instrument which contains regulations is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'. 
No. 395, in 
clause 187, page 132, line 33, after 'under,', insert 'section 133,'.

Richard Younger-Ross: I shall strive for brevity, as I am aware that the Committee still has a lot of business to get through. Amendment No. 355 would require the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations on the home information pack and the home condition report.
 We are entering new and untried territory, and it is important that the Secretary of State, in making regulations on the home information pack, should have access to the best advice from the property industry. There has been a lot of concern about the effects of certain aspects of the Bill; that is clear from consultation and from the information that the Minister gave in his previous answer. Although we think that the concept of the compulsory home information pack is flawed—my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton succinctly and elegantly argued that earlier—if the Government are to go ahead with the proposal, it is essential that the 
 proposals be drawn up in the best way to facilitate the Bill's best aims. I am trying to be helpful to the Minister. We must speed up and improve the property selling process.

Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman is asking the Government to consult before drawing up regulations, but the provision is a classic example of their doing just that. They published a consultation paper on what should be included in home information packs. I have not had a chance to study the detail, and one could argue that it should have been made available earlier, but surely the Government are doing precisely what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Richard Younger-Ross: The Government have consulted on the broader issues, but I want them to do so on the finer detail of the proposals and on how the Bill should be amended.
 Amendment No. 357 would require affirmative procedure rather than negative to be used for the regulations. The majority of the detail about home information packs will be dealt with through regulations, and we believe that the House should be able to debate such regulations, because the Bill gives the Minister wide-ranging powers. We are treading new ground and the views of the House should be expressed, especially as the vast majority of the details of the legislation are left to regulation. 
 Amendment No. 395 would limit the Minister's power to make such regulations. It would force the Minister to come to the House to deal with the matter.

Keith Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, who leapt to the Government's defence. I do not blame the hon. Member for Teignbridge, because he has been unavoidably detained elsewhere during our proceedings. Had he been here, he would have heard innumerable—indeed endless—references to the extensive consultation in which the Government have engaged, are engaged, and propose to engage. We are engaged with every player in the house buying and house selling community, and that will continue. They recognise that packs are a coming idea that will be of enormous benefit to the people whom they seek to serve. We are eager to facilitate their involvement in the process. I assure him that the amendment is—as we say in this place—entirely otiose.
 Amendments Nos. 357 and 395 would change from negative to affirmative the procedure used in respect of the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers. That is a hoary old chestnut—you, Mr. Pike, must have heard many times the demand made in Committee for the affirmative procedure to be used. If we accepted all such calls that Opposition Members regularly make during Committees, we would spend our lives debating regulations in every nook and cranny of the building—we would not even have time for Committees in which to make demands for the affirmative procedure. 
 I say to the hon. Gentleman that we have consulted and listened carefully to Parliament. If we get Parliament's support in principle for the proposals, we will want to move swiftly to implement the detailed provisions of the home information packs by statutory instrument. It should be borne in mind that we want to retain flexibility in terms of our proposals for changes in the market and in practices among the institutions. We must be able to respond to developments, and the negative procedure will allow us to work quickly should that prove necessary. For all those compelling reasons, I trust that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw these somewhat formulistic amendments.

Richard Younger-Ross: I am grateful for the Minister's response to amendment No. 355; I am delighted that the consultation will continue. That is what we were seeking to elicit from the Minister, and I am grateful for his clarification. However, I am disappointed with the Minister's response to amendment No. 357. We are treading new ground. Time and again one hears hon. Members utter the excuse, ''It was not what we did, it was what the others did after us.'' The regulations that follow legislation often result in complaints from our constituents, so I am disappointed not to have secured the affirmative procedure in this case. However, aware of the time pressures, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendments.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Kidney: I beg to move amendment No. 312, in
clause 133, page 90, line 3, at end insert—
'(h) the extent to which the property provides a reasonable means of access and ease of use for disabled people or the extent to which it may be easily adapted to provide such access and ease of use.'.
 As we devise a brand new system, we have a great opportunity to face up to the fact that many of our citizens have one or more disabilities. The point of the amendment is to recognise that. Hon. Members who received the briefing from the Disability Rights Commission before Second Reading will recall the statistics that it quoted. At least 8.6 million adults in Great Britain—one in five of the population— have a disability, and 62 per cent. of those with disabilities, or some 5.3 million people, are owner-occupiers. It therefore seems reasonable to propose that we recognise their needs in our new system. Information about the accessibility of properties is relevant to the decisions that such people make about whether to buy a property. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that that information is included in the home information pack. 
 The amendment deals with the contents of the home information pack. I ask hon. Members to note that subsection (4) is very broadly worded in terms of relevant information, which is information 
''about any matter connected with the property . . . that would be of interest to potential buyers.''
As I have shown, a large number of potential buyers will be people with one disability or more, and my amendment relates to subsection (5), which sets out a list of items that it is intended that the Minister will decide should be included in the pack. I suggest that that list should contain an extra provision for information about the property that is relevant to the needs of disabled people. That would include such things as 
''means of access . . . or the extent to which it may be easily adapted to provide such access''. 
I have looked at the existing materials that might assist a disabled person with the decision, for example, the Law Society's ''Enquiries Before Contract'', set out in appendices K and L of the consultation document that was mentioned earlier. It contains nothing relevant to the issue. I have also looked at the proposed form of the home condition report. That, too, contains nothing relevant. It therefore seems reasonable to propose that there should be something in the Bill to deal with the issue. I am minded of people who plan to go on holiday. 
 People who plan to go on holiday get brochures to decide which holiday to buy, whether in this country or overseas. Increasingly, the brochures deal with matters of relevance to people with disabilities, such as whether the hotel or villa has stairs and whether it has wide doorways for wheelchair access. If it is reasonable for somebody who is taking a few weeks' holiday to require that kind of information, how much more important must it be for people to have such information on a place that might become their home for a lifetime? 
 I realise that, according to subsection (1), that will all be dealt with in regulations. I looked at the Minister's latest letter to the Committee, but did not see anything to reassure me that this issue will be addressed in the regulations. I put it to the Minister that he ought to give that reassurance now.

Sydney Chapman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford on tabling the amendment. I am sure that we all have sympathy with his case, not least because of the number of our constituents who are disabled in one way or another, but the problem with his amendment is that it would insert a Christmas-tree subsection. On the one hand, we can all think of things to add, but on the other, we want to make our legislation as simple and easy to understand as possible, and not unnecessarily long.
 I do not want to argue against the amendment at this stage, as I would like to hear what the Minister has to say, but I should think that the purpose of the amendment is covered by subsection (d): 
''the physical condition of the property (including any particular characteristics or features of the property)''. 
Surely, it would be in a vendor's interests to mention that a property has facilities for a disabled person. The point of subsection (5) seems to be to give information on matters that are not readily, or visually, apparent to the prospective buyer. For example, I refer the Committee to paragraph (e): 
''the energy efficiency of the property''
That ought to be included, not only because it is an important issue—as are disabled facilities—but because one cannot necessarily understand the energy efficiency of a property just by looking at it. 
 In conclusion, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his paragraph (h) is not needed because the extent of such facilities would be readily apparent to anyone interested in buying the property.

John Hayes: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford on tabling the amendment. It is absolutely appropriate that we have this discussion.
 The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the cultural change—we can put it that strongly—that has taken place in terms of the recognition of disabled people's needs, particularly the whole range of matters that are summed up by the term ''access''. That is about more than simply making ramps available for wheelchair users; it pertains to a range of adaptations to buildings, including homes, to make them friendlier and more appropriate for disabled people. That change in culture has, in part, come about because of statutory requirements. I do not believe that the market would have produced it from the ether. The hon. Member for Ipswich, who is a great fan of the market, may think that it would have produced that change, but I think that statutory stimulus was required. 
 The hon. Member for Stafford is right to draw our attention to the fact that a significant change in culture has been effected through a range of legislative change, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, I am not convinced that the amendment is appropriate. It is a useful stimulant to discussion, but it is inappropriate for two reasons. My hon. Friend has already made the first point forcefully: many of the adaptations that I have described will be apparent to the view, and will be treated as appealing features in the marketing of the property. Such features are not like some of the other things that will be revealed by the home information pack, particularly the home condition report; that will assist buyers' discovery of features of the house that they would not otherwise know about. The bulk of adaptations, of the kind implied by the amendment, do not fall into that category. 
 More significantly, the difficulty with the hon. Gentleman's amendment is in delineating where one would stop. For example, would we want a similar requirement in respect of elderly people who might not be technically disabled? They might not be registered disabled nor regard themselves as disabled, but they might need a particular requirement in respect of their housing. Could such issues be applied sensibly to people with medical conditions, which might include chronic medical conditions, such as allergies, that might be strongly influenced by the construction of the house and some of its contents? I do not mean furniture—material contents can have an impact on allergy sufferers. 
 A powerful case could be put for people in that position, for example, the growing menace of asthma among children is of concern to everyone in the Committee. The real problem with the amendment is that it is hard to know where we would stop. Powerful cases could be made for chronically sick or elderly people along similar lines to the case that the hon. Gentleman has made for disabled people. Not all chronically sick or elderly people are disabled in the sense that we usually recognise, whereby they are registered disabled and in receipt of disability benefits. For that reason, I—reluctantly—cannot support the amendment, although I am sympathetic to it. I hope that, in his concluding remarks, the Minister will take on board its sentiment and will want in regulation and guidance to highlight the importance of such issues once again. It seems that the proposal is another useful vehicle for us to use to encourage good practice, but I am not sure that it needs to be mandatory in the way that the amendment implies.

Richard Younger-Ross: There is much in the sentiment of the amendment with which I agree. Without going into the absurdities that the Conservative Front Bench goes into, there would be difficulties in its detailed implementation. We need only to note the definition of the word ''disabled'' or someone who is registered disabled and all the access arrangements for people with different disabilities, if they are deaf, blind or have mobility difficulties and need wheelchair access.
 I hope that the Minister will reply sympathetically to the debate and say that he will consider the provision further to see whether something simpler than is proposed could be encompassed within the information pack—if we have to have such packs. I do not want to put a vast additional cost on the pack; I am just making a simple statement. Many disabled people might not want to view the properties straight away. They may wish to have access to a pack, via the internet or whatever, before visiting the premises. Information that tells them what facilities are available at the property would be a great bonus to them. 
 My background was mentioned earlier. I was never a qualified architect, but my background was in architecture. I have conducted many disabled access surveys of properties. I have adapted properties to provide disabled access and other facilities. Evaluating a property for disabled access is not necessarily a quick, cheap task. It would be fraught with difficulties if it were included in the pack. Let us consider what would happen if a person was aware that the house was in an elevated position, up 25 steps. From the street to the first floor of my property is 39 steps.

Sydney Chapman: ''The Power House''.

Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet is an educated man.
 Such statements about elevated position would show whether the property would be suitable for adaptation and may be of benefit. I expect most disabled people to have some idea, or to be able to get advice from their advisers, as to what sort of adaptations can be made to a property. That may be a 
 useful way forward. I hope that the Minister will be kind and responsive to the amendment, but I foresee some difficulty with its wording.

Keith Hill: What an excellent lawmaker my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford is, as he has demonstrated throughout our proceedings. No wonder he is my guru in these matters. It goes without saying that I am sympathetic to the purpose underlying my hon. Friend's amendment, which he has researched thoroughly. I assure him that the force of his arguments have guaranteed that we will look very carefully at what further might need to be said and done in connection with home information packs and the issue of disability. However—my hon. Friend knew that there would be a however—for the reasons that I am about to give, I hope that he will agree that the amendment is unnecessary.
 Information on whether the property is being sold as suitable for disabled people is clearly relevant information within the meaning of clause 133(4). Furthermore, information of that nature would fall within the existing description in clause 133(5)(d). That provides that the pack may include information on 
''the physical condition of the property (including any particular characteristics or features of the property)''. 
What the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said was absolutely right. 
 Disabled people are individuals, and their needs differ. There is a misconception that all disabled people use wheelchairs and that adaptations are all about putting up ramps to the front door and handrails in bathrooms. Handrails in bathrooms need to be individually sited to suit the needs of the person using them. I am sure that the hon. Member for Teignbridge, who obviously has relevant experience, will agree with that proposition. Some alterations, such a stairlift, might be of benefit to some disabled people but a real hazard to others, such as a blind man. In other words, it is not possible to produce a generic report on the suitability of a home for the whole range of disabilities that people may have. People's needs must be individually assessed. 
 It seems to me entirely appropriate and desirable that estate agents should not rely on the home information pack to provide that kind of information. Rather, when a home is suitable for occupation by a disabled person it should be highlighted in the sales particulars. For example, the particulars may point out that a bungalow with sloping access may be suitable for occupation by someone requiring wheelchair access. The issue is one of good practice. With my hon. Friend's permission, we will certainly raise and pursue it most vigorously with the representative bodies.

John Hayes: The Minister makes a good point about not all disabilities being equivalent in terms of what they suggest in respect of adaptations to homes. In addition, many disabilities are dynamic; they change,
 and the requirements of the disabled person change substantially with them. One needs to be sensitive to the implications of that.

Keith Hill: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who has a particular commitment to such issues, is absolutely right about that. I am grateful to him for that intervention.
 As I have made an unequivocal commitment to pursuing the matter further with the appropriate representative bodies, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford will appreciate our reasons for not wishing to specify matters in the Bill when it is not necessary to do so. In light of all those reassurances, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

David Kidney: I am pleased that the amendment has sparked such a good debate, in which several hon. Members have participated and recognised the importance of the subject under discussion. That was helpful, and I thank all hon. Members for their kind words about me.
 I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said about the Christmas-tree approach. I would not want to embark on that, but it is more compelling than other suggestions. I hope that he will accept that I believe it should be in the Bill. 
 Both the Conservative Members who contributed to the debate spoke of the ability of disabled people to spot whether a property was suitable by inspecting it. I was therefore grateful to the hon. Member for Teignbridge for pointing out that some people might prefer to have information that would show whether a property was plainly unsuitable, and save them the bother of a fruitless visit. As a home information pack has to be made available when a property is first marketed, it should include such information. I argue that it would be useful. 
 I thank the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings for mentioning the cultural change of recent years. When I spoke about holiday advertisements and the brochures that contain information, I realised that it was a good illustration. People readily understand that such information matters to a large number of customers—consumers, people. 
 I was grateful to the Minister for the clear statement that information that is relevant to access for disabled people is relevant information for the purposes of clause 133(4). 
 I am drawn in the end to clause 133(5)(d), which the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet drew to my attention. The Minister, too, relied on it. I would like to give further consideration to whether what has been said is good enough or whether I should contemplate tabling an amendment to paragraph (d) to add something about access for disabled people. I shall think on that, but I have no need to press the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Richard Younger-Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 363, in
clause 133, page 90, line 14, leave out from 'which' to end of line 16 and insert
'acknowledge liability for any error contained in the prescribed document due to his negligence in favour of'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 364, in 
clause 134, page 90, line 33, at end insert— 
 '(2A) Regulations under Section 133 shall ensure that home condition reports will satisfy minimum criteria likely to be acceptable to mortgage lenders'. 
No. 369, in 
clause 134, page 91, line 10, at end insert— 
 '(f) for sellers, buyers and lenders to be entitled to bring proceedings in respect of a home condition report upon which they have relied in any transaction'.

Richard Younger-Ross: We come to the final set of amendments on clause 133. I make no apology for saying that they are probing amendments, which I hope will elicit further information from the Minister.
 Amendment No. 363 is intended to establish exactly what is envisaged. Subsections (7) and (8) appear to empower the making of regulations that would entitle a buyer, mortgage lender or other person to ''enforce'' the provisions of a ''contract'' under which a prescribed document is to be prepared by a person or body. Does that mean that if the seller employs a solicitor to prepare replies to a seller's property information form, or a home inspector to prepare a home condition report, or a personal search agent to produce a local authority search, the buyer can enforce that contract against that person or organisation? If that is the intention, exactly what does it mean that the contract can be enforced? 
 If the contract has been performed and the document has been produced, then—always depending on its terms—the contract may be at an end. If it is intended to impose liability on the preparer of the document in favour of the buyer and the lender for the correctness of the document, imposing such liability in negligence, rather than strict liability and contract, may be appropriate for home condition reports or home inspectors. That would apply also to the bodies such as local authorities that provide replies to the local authority inquiry form Con 29, which already accept such liability, or certain of the utility companies providing, for example, replies to the drainage and water search Con 29DW. However, it may not be right to impose that liability on conveyancers who are simply assisting the seller by preparing replies to seller's property information forms. I invite the Minister to explain what the Government are attempting to achieve with subsection (8). 
 The purpose of amendment No. 364—I am sure that inspiration is winging its way to the Minister as I speak—is to ensure that the home condition report is acceptable to most lenders. I am fairly sure of what the Minister's response is going to be. At some point in the process, lenders will want a valuation, which the home condition report, as envisaged, will not contain. However, that is a double-edged sword: if the report is 
 not acceptable to lenders, the buyer will have to pay for a further report, but if it is, the report is likely to be costly to the seller. We obviously do not want to increase the costs. The voluntary provision of home condition reports referred to at No. 11 would alleviate this concern. 
 Finally, the purpose of amendment No. 369 is to allow sellers, buyers and lenders to bring proceedings if they have relied on information in the home condition report that proves incorrect. That is an important area, where clarification is required. I hope that the Minister is well versed. If a home condition report is included in a pack, that report should be acceptable to anyone who places reliance on it. As the law stands, it is not clear who, other than the seller, could be certain of being able to secure compensation if the report were defective. A lender and a buyer would be reluctant to rely on a report if they had no redress in the event of its being incorrect or defective. It is essential to make clear to whom the producer of a report on a property could be liable in the event that a report was relied on that subsequently turned out to be defective. 
 Let me add in conclusion that I have had difficulties because of a solicitor who was, in my view, totally incompetent. He was acting for another person from whom I was trying to buy some land. I had no redress against that solicitor because he was acting for the other person and not me. That cost me a large sum of money. There is a case for defining where the liabilities lie.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman has struck a small nugget of gold; he has raised an important matter. I refer particularly to amendment No. 364. Although the Minister has said repeatedly this afternoon that we have exhausted every conceivable argument on home information packs, I am not sure that we have exhausted the argument about the relationship of the packs with the requirements of lenders. If lenders are to continue to insist on their own survey in addition to packs, that would seem to undermine the Government's argument for the necessity of packs. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw that to the Minister's attention and to put the Minister under some pressure.
 The Minister will have had extensive discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and others. He will have been privy to all sorts of high-level talks that the likes of us can only dream of. He will have had either a thumbs-down or a thumbs-up from the financial institutions—the mortgage lenders. My suspicion is that there has been a thumbs-down, and that the mortgage lenders have said, ''We do not think that these packs will be worth the paper that they are written on. We are going to insist on our own surveys because we trust our own judgment. If we are going to lend people an enormous amount of money, we want to be sure on what basis we are making that commitment.'' 
 I strongly believe that on most occasions mortgage lenders will continue to want their own survey. If that is the case, it is essential that the amendment be not only tabled, but debated at length and, if necessary, 
 pushed. I am not saying that if it were we would vote for it. We would have to consider whether that particular wording, given the history of the Liberal Democrat amendments, is the best possible. 
 We will certainly be very interested to hear the Minister's response and to hear him confirm whether he has had that disappointing thumbs-down despite all his efforts, whether he is regarded by all those important bodies as not being up to the mark, or whether he can relieve us by telling us that he has made the grade.

Keith Hill: I am shocked by the hon. Gentleman's scepticism. It is the same old tune. He is like the Bourbons; he has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. In response to the question about the definition of subsection (8) raised by the hon. Member for Teignbridge, at that moment, for reasons beyond my understanding, the Government appear to have suffered from a collective loss of attention. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will peruse the Hansard record and write to him with a full answer.
 Here we go again. Amendment No. 363 would specify that the terms of documents provided in the pack include terms that allow claims for negligence to be brought by those who rely on them. Amendment No. 369 would specify that sellers, buyers and lenders might bring proceedings against a person who prepares a home condition report on which they rely. In the case of the home condition report, that is not necessary, as I shall explain shortly. 
 We intend that the home inspector's liability to sellers, buyers and lenders will be secured by contract. Home inspectors will be bound by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. It will ensure that the buyer and lender, as well as the seller who commissions the home condition report, will be able to rely on it and bring proceedings against the inspector should that prove necessary.

John Hayes: Earlier in our conversation, however, the Minister said that in cases where a property was covered by warranty, that would be the first recourse in the event of a legal dispute. Is that right?

Keith Hill: Honestly! That was in relation to brand-new properties. We have had this debate so many times that I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman.
 The issue of recourse and redress through the courts is important. Although remedies via the courts will be possible as a last resort, we recognise that it is not an attractive option for most people. We are therefore making it a condition that any certification has an effective complaint resolution procedure. In developing those procedures, the certification schemes will need to consider whether lenders', buyers' and sellers' interests can be served by the complaint handling arrangements or whether separate schemes would be more appropriate. A steering group comprised of key stakeholders such as my old friends, the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the wonderful Consumers Association, are advising us on the matter. 
 Amendment No. 364 would amend clause 134 to require the Secretary of State to ensure that the home condition report was acceptable to lenders. It is of course crucial that the report is acceptable to lenders, but I am reluctant to single them out in the way that has been suggested by the Liberal Democrat amendment. 
 It being five minutes to Seven o' clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D relating to programming [6 November 2003] and the Order of the Committee [20 January], as amended, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. 
 Amendment negatived. 
 Clause 133 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 134 - Home condition reports

Amendment proposed: No. 420, in 
clause 134, page 91, line 16, at end insert— 
 '(8) A responsible person will be exempt from the requirement to provide a Home Condition report in the following circumstances— 
 (a) the sale of a new home provided that it is registered with a warranty provider designated by the Secretary of State, 
 (b) the resale of a new home where the warranty cover remains in force, 
 (c) the transfer of ownership by a developer of a new home to another company prior to marketing the property to the public where the company assuming ownership is registered with a warranty provider designated by the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Hayes.] 
 Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 11.

Clause 134 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 135 to 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 - Penalty charge notices under section 137

Amendments made: No. 383, in 
schedule 7, page 175, line 18, leave out '4' and insert '8B'. 
No. 384, in 
schedule 7, page 175, line 33, leave out paragraphs 4 and 5. 
No. 385, in
schedule 7, page 176, leave out lines 4 to 6. 
No. 386, in 
schedule 7, page 176, line 7, after 'If' insert 
 ', within the period specified under paragraph 1(c) (or that period as extended under paragraph 3(2)),'. 
No. 387, in 
schedule 7, page 176, line 14, at end insert 'and 8B(1) and (3)'. 
No. 388, in 
schedule 7, page 176, line 24, leave out 'a' and insert 'after a review the'. 
No. 389, in 
schedule 7, page 176, line 38, at end insert— 
 '8A If the penalty charge notice is withdrawn or quashed, the authority shall repay any amount previously paid as a penalty charge in pursuance of the notice. 
 8B (1) The amount of the penalty charge is recoverable from the recipient of the penalty charge notice as a debt owed to the authority unless— 
 (a) the notice has been withdrawn or quashed, or 
 (b) the charge has been paid. 
 (2) Proceedings for the recovery of the penalty charge may not be commenced before the end of the period mentioned in paragraph 7(1). 
 (3) And if within that period the recipient of the penalty charge notice gives notice to the authority that he wishes the authority to review the penalty charge notice, such proceedings may not be commenced— 
 (a) before the end of the period mentioned in paragraph 8(1), and 
 (b) where the recipient appeals against the penalty charge notice, before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the appeal is withdrawn or determined. 
 8C In proceedings for the recovery of the penalty charge, a certificate which— 
 (a) purports to be signed by or on behalf of the person having responsibility for the financial affairs of the enforcement authority; and 
 (b) states that payment of the penalty charge was or was not received by a date specified in the certificate; 
 is evidence of the facts stated.'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to. 
 Clause 138 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 139 - Right of private action

Amendments made: No. 377, in 
clause 139, page 92, line 22, leave out subsections (1) to (4) and insert— 
 '(1) This section applies where a person (''the responsible person'') has committed a breach of duty under section 128 by failing to comply with a request from a potential buyer of a residential property for a copy of a prescribed document.
 (2) If the potential buyer commissions his own version of the prescribed document at a time when both of the conditions mentioned below are satisfied, he is entitled to recover from the responsible person any reasonable fee paid by him in order to obtain the document. 
 (3) The first condition is that— 
 (a) the property is on the market; or 
 (b) the potential buyer and the seller are attempting to reach an agreement for the sale of the property. 
 (4) The second condition is that the potential buyer has not been provided with an authentic copy of the prescribed document.'. 
No. 378, in 
clause 139, page 92, line 36, leave out 
 'stood at the time the request was made' 
 and insert 
 'stands at the time the copy is provided to the potential buyer'. 
No. 379, in 
clause 139, page 93, line 1, leave out subsection (7). 
No. 380, in 
clause 139, page 93, line 7, at end insert— 
 '( ) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section that the request in question did not specify the prescribed document but was for a copy of the home information pack or a part of the pack which included (or ought to have included) that document.'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Clause 139, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 140 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 141 - Application of Part to sub-divided buildings

Amendments made: No. 381, in 
clause 141, page 93, line 18, at end insert 
 '; but 
 (ii) is available with vacant possession.'. 
No. 382, in 
clause 141, page 93, line 19, leave out subsection (2) and insert— 
 '(2) This Part applies to the dwelling-houses mentioned in subsection (1)(a) (with any ancillary land) as if— 
 (a) they were a residential property, and 
 (b) section 131 were omitted. 
 (2A) Subsection (2) does not affect the application of this Part to any of those dwelling-houses which is available for sale (with any ancillary land) as a separate residential property.'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Clause 141, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 142 to 145 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Paul Clark.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Seven o'clock till Thursday 12 February at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.
 Iddon, Dr.  Keeble, Ms  Kidney, Mr.  Mole, Mr.  Rooney, Mr.  Ruane, Chris  Selous, Andrew  Syms, Mr.  Whitehead, Dr.  Younger-Ross, Richard